Group 4: How can we integrate standards-based curriculum into the ID4T model?
This chapter highlights some responses to the standards movement in America and offers suggestions for educators on how to utilize the ID4T model for that approach. Standard-Based Curriculum (SBC) is put forward as a way of identifying and setting standards or goals and expectations beforehand to facilitate transparency between the educators and learners. Although the shift towards SBC has been largely motivated by politics rather than research, it is possible to integrate SBC into the ID4T model where it can assist teachers in setting goals, implementation of programs, developing and analyzing assessment methods, and making revisions.
The primary components of SBC include: 1) Carefully prescribed content. 2) Specific thresholds for proficient performance at all grade levels. 3) Mandated and approved tests. 4) Expectations linked to performance. 5) Obligatory checks on all students’ expectations. 6) Standards for which the outcomes are determined.
The chapter positively discusses SBC as including the integration of communities, administration and teachers as a part of standard determination. SBC allows teachers to focus and organize their curriculum and instruction to help all students meet standards with pre-identified resources. These actions promote accountability and some level of order that allows time to focus on other issues. Conversely, the chapter also states that standards-based learning (SBL) does not align with the student-oriented innovations of constructivism, user-design, or inquiry-based learning. SBC may restrict teachers in their work where the standards and the tests have further disempowered teachers and local communities.
Three primary themes include: 1) Initiative: Standards-based learning is motivated by politics rather than research. 2) Development: Standards are often very broad and unclear, forcing educators to teach to the test, however standards do facilitate the zeroing in on areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3) Limitation: SBC may restrict teachers’ work, and there is limited time per class, as teachers must meet the standards.
We agree there are challenges and benefits to implementing SBC. 1) There are benefits of having common educational goals, but standardized testing does impose limits on educators. 2) High stake tests are not authentic and teachers can become forced to teach-to-the-test. 3) Teachers must prepare for the final test authentically, add supplemental materials and assessments in preparation. 4) Educators have limited time and resources, thus there are concerns about the practicality of actually implementing it. These challenges and benefits sparked a conversation amongst our group. Although we agreed on most of the topics discussed in this chapter, the one topic we disagreed on is whether SBC is restricting for teachers and learners or if it’s an opportunity that holds teachers accountable for individual learner success. This led us to ask the following question…
Question:
Have pre-approved learning goals been a part of your instructional scheme? If yes, please explain. At what risk or benefit to the learners do you believe is experienced by setting pre-determined learning goals?
REFERENCES
Bartman, I., Smee, S., & Roy, M. (2013). A method for identifying extreme OSCE examiners. The Clinical Teacher, 10(1), 27–31. doi:10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00607.x
Group 4: How can we integrate standards-based curriculum into the ID4T model?
This chapter highlights some responses to the standards movement in America and offers suggestions for educators on how to utilize the ID4T model for that approach. Standard-Based Curriculum (SBC) is put forward as a way of identifying and setting standards or goals and expectations beforehand to facilitate transparency between the educators and learners. Although the shift towards SBC has been largely motivated by politics rather than research, it is possible to integrate SBC into the ID4T model where it can assist teachers in setting goals, implementation of programs, developing and analyzing assessment methods, and making revisions.
The primary components of SBC include: 1) Carefully prescribed content. 2) Specific thresholds for proficient performance at all grade levels. 3) Mandated and approved tests. 4) Expectations linked to performance. 5) Obligatory checks on all students’ expectations. 6) Standards for which the outcomes are determined.
The chapter positively discusses SBC as including the integration of communities, administration and teachers as a part of standard determination. SBC allows teachers to focus and organize their curriculum and instruction to help all students meet standards with pre-identified resources. These actions promote accountability and some level of order that allows time to focus on other issues. Conversely, the chapter also states that standards-based learning (SBL) does not align with the student-oriented innovations of constructivism, user-design, or inquiry-based learning. SBC may restrict teachers in their work where the standards and the tests have further disempowered teachers and local communities.
Three primary themes include: 1) Initiative: Standards-based learning is motivated by politics rather than research. 2) Development: Standards are often very broad and unclear, forcing educators to teach to the test, however standards do facilitate the zeroing in on areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3) Limitation: SBC may restrict teachers’ work, and there is limited time per class, as teachers must meet the standards.
We agree there are challenges and benefits to implementing SBC. 1) There are benefits of having common educational goals, but standardized testing does impose limits on educators. 2) High stake tests are not authentic and teachers can become forced to teach-to-the-test. 3) Teachers must prepare for the final test authentically, add supplemental materials and assessments in preparation. 4) Educators have limited time and resources, thus there are concerns about the practicality of actually implementing it. These challenges and benefits sparked a conversation amongst our group. Although we agreed on most of the topics discussed in this chapter, the one topic we disagreed on is whether SBC is restricting for teachers and learners or if it’s an opportunity that holds teachers accountable for individual learner success. This led us to ask the following question…
Question:
Have pre-approved learning goals been a part of your instructional scheme? If yes, please explain.
At what risk or benefit to the learners do you believe is experienced by setting pre-determined learning goals?
REFERENCES
Bartman, I., Smee, S., & Roy, M. (2013). A method for identifying extreme OSCE examiners. The Clinical Teacher, 10(1), 27–31. doi:10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00607.x
Carr-Chellman, A. (2010). Instructional Design for Teachers : Improving Classroom Practice. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary/docDetail.action?docID=10416483
Robinson, Ken. (2013, April). Ken Robinson: How to escape education’s death valley [.flv]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc
Standards-Based Education Reform in the United States. “n.d.”. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards-based_education_reform